A handy infographic about who can immigrate to the U.S. legally, and how long it takes to get a legally protected status. Courtesy of those kooky libertarians at Reason Magazine, no less.
Now, for proponents of the Arizona bill, I have just one question: on what basis might a person be reasonably suspected of being in this country without proper legal authorization?
No, you won’t. Even for you, asking where the abuses are from a law which has been overturned would be over the top. 
It’s very hard to summarise such a complex process, but that diagram gets pretty close. Two things that it leaves out:
(1) Refugees.
(2) The Diversity Lottery (or Green Card Lottery).
However, people from Mexico are very unlikely to be accepted as refugees, and are not eligible for the Diversity Lottery.
Heh.
Well, if it gets overturned on the basis over preemption, I’ll be mildly surprised, but not shocked to my very core. I regard the preemption argument as wrong but tenable.
If it’s overturned because of some Equal Protection-type claim, I will humbly and sincerely eat helping after helping of crow.
And what about the reverse scenario – the law is sustained, and doesn’t produce substantially more claims of racial profiling than existed beforehand?
Will the opponents step up with some, “I was wrong,” statements?
For me, that’s not the big problem with the law. The problems are:
(1) It’s trying to fix the wrong problem
(2) It’s not even going to solve that problem.
What should be asked in three years time are:
(1) Is there less crime associated with drug smuggling from Mexico in Arizona because of this law?
(2) Are there fewer illegal immigrants in Arizona because of this law?
My guess is that the answer to both questions will be no, and you can quote me in three years time if you like.
You have got to be kidding me.
I want the Patriot Act rescinded. I didn’t want it signed. It’s a travesty.
I might, if I remember. (Will you remind me?) I will say though, that the amendment to it has eased my concerns somewhat. (Specifically, the change from “lawful contact” to “lawful stop, detention or arrest”.) I still think it’s bad law. We’ll see in a year or three, I suppose.
It is my understanding that for a law enforcement agency to request verification of a Social Security number, the request must be made in writing by the head of the police department. This process is required by the Privacy Act of 1974.
My point is that I do not know of any effective system in place to inform law enforcement of the citizenship of a person. One could show a passport or birth certificate, but I don’t believe that law enforcement is able to verify those in any kind of timely manner.
There are certainly immigration databases that would show if someone overstayed their visa, but the country just doesn’t have a system in place to readily verify that someone is a citizen. I’m open to being corrected on this matter.
In the end, I think it is a law that is unwise because verification cannot be effective, because I’m not sure how I could show I am an American citizen if I were stopped walking down the street, littering or making a nuisance. We don’t have a national ID card, unlike European countries.
So, I think putting this law in the hands of out-of-control law enforcement agencies, like the one run by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is unwise because while it may catch some wrongdoers, it is also difficult for even citizens to prove their citizenship when there is no reliable system in existence for proving citizenship in a timely manner… short of perhaps locking someone up for hours while someone else goes to collect someone’s passport or whatever.
And speaking of Sheriff Joe, I must note that his enforcement of immigration laws have not resulted in a single conviction of a business owner who employed illegal aliens.
Der Trihs, you’ve tossed out a bunch of information that’s pretty inflammatory, but you’ve given no proof. Your idea that the brown man will wilt under the thumb of oppression is your opinion, but you have no proof of any of your b.s. What happened? Did whitey give up on the blacks, so now he has to screw the brown man?
Your paranoia is amazing. Makes me wonder why you live in a country as racist and oppressive as this one.
In his response to your
I doubt it. But even if it was, let him answer for himself.
As I recall the Patriot Act was going to lock up innocent malcontents without due process… after what, 8 years or so, where’s the expose on the abuses? Lincoln pulled more shit during the Civil War, locking up people without due process, and he’s a God-like president. I guess the ends justifies the means. As long as you agree with them, of course.
Somehow I have the feeling that the “brown man” will still be a part of the melting pot. Arizona did the right thing. Other states will follow suit. Life will go on. And if you are found to be in the country illegally, you will be prosecuted. I doubt that means it will turn into a witch hunt. It will instead force people to stop turning a blind eye to border crossings. Not such a bad thing. And why is it a bad thing for a country to want to know who resides within its own borders, and control the population influx as it deems necessary?
Is there anyone from Arizona on this board that can give us an honest idea of the state of things there? Is the citizenry upset with the law? Are people stepping on the “brown man” and pushing him across the border?
Der Trihs was exaggerating a little, but he’s pointing in the right direction. However, it’s not just the capitalists that benefit from exploited cheap labour: it’s everyone who pays a lower price for fruit and vegetables in the supermarket, of for cheaper home construction and repairs. That’s why, even though a lot of people complain about the “problem”, they don’t want to really fix the problem.
I’m the one that has made issue with your broad brush comment to Der Trihs. When you said that the Patriot Act would never had been passed if he (or me, or whomever?) had been concerned with his (or mine or whomever’s?) civil liberties. He then stated that he had opposed it, but it was passed by people like you. You then derisively accused him of painting with a broad brush, when in fact you had used one yourself with the prior statement. It’s a mite bit hypocritical is what I’m tryin’ to say.
but illegal immigrants can’t. stinkfish was merely saying that there already exists a handy, easy-to-carry proof of legal status.
however this means the students in arizona here on study visas, and vacationers on tourism visas, etc. have to lug around those around everywhere they go.
so… if you’re a mexican looking person hanging out by the home depot looking for work, yet don’t have a license to work, a cop is probably going to give you a citation for loitering, then proceed to ask for some documentation.
practically speaking, no. i don’t think the law is a huge deal. there’s a reason why Arizona is allowed to pass a law that won’t affect Maine. It’s to deal with a local issue that won’t affect other citizens. trying to analogize it to canadians, germans, etc. is a failure in comparison.
however, do i have a problem with the ramifications the law will have on select citizens? absolutely. is that loss a bigger detriment than trying to curb illegal immigration? i think so.
as to the issue WHY illegal immigration is so bad? it generates false market information that depresses food prices, causing a dissonance in expected returns that leads to such heavy governmental subsidies of the farming industry. if food costs were higher, and we paid more for our groceries, the government wouldn’t have to subsidize so much.
however this gets into the question of does the value generated by cheaper labor offset the government spending? after all the dollars have to come from somewhere. really i haven’t seen any conclusive evidence that the cheap labor is overall a good thing (making food cheaper so we can spend our dollars on ipods).
aside from economics, there’s also the social implications of a mass influx of lower socio-economic residents and the effects on property values, local culture, education, crime rate, etc.
i think that’s where this thread should take its focus - the GREAT aspect of debating, rather than focusing on minute technicalities in an effort to contradict the previous poster’s general point.
edit: my paragraphs look so much longer in the quick-reply window…
If a law enforcemnet officer asks “Are you a US citizen?” and the answer is “no” … and then the follow up questions re: actual status are not answered satisfactorily, Then I would say they have a reasonable basis.
Bullshit. The law clearly states that LEOs can only interrogate for citizenship status subsequent to an initial contact for other probable cause.
This law wouldn’t last a week, if the police actually followed it. Under the new law, the police are required to verify the citizenship of anyone they have reason to suspect might be an illegal immigrant. Well, guess what? There’s reason to suspect that any given person might be an illegal immigrant. If the politicians and citizens and taxpayers of Arizona all had to provide proof of citizenship every time they ever encountered a police officer, as the law requires, do you really think anyone at all would be in favor of this law?
There is no reason why an illegal immigrant who was once legal would not have an SSN. They don’t revoke the number, you know. It is NOT proof of legal status.
I really don’t understand the proponents of this law who continue to insist that having a driver’s license or an SSN is proof of status. They are not. I, for one, do not intend to carry around my birth certificate or passport when I am in Arizona, just in case, but those are the only things that prove my citizenship and either of them could be forged.
Or, in most states, a driver’s license.
You should have had to produce a birth certificate to get the license. That would be on file.
We are a nation of immigrants. To suggest that Mexicans or any other nationality get to jump to the head of the line by virtue of illegal entry is an amazingly arrogant position to take.
